The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-10-06
Third Party roollshness.
To the Editor of the Press:

~ Htc A<NttOF " ttc Tco5s
May ask another hearing, brief one. in
the matter Of your attack ON the motives Of
the prohibitionist party leaders in Maine.
You say that some Of them have attacked
the motives OF leaders Of the old parties.
regret exceedingly that there Is ground for
your statement, and II you insist that this
justifes like unfairness on your part, you
silence me. But IL would seem as though,
where "babes in politics." las Mr. Reed calls
u.s. disregard the courtesy Of debate. the
representatives OF great party might, with
more dignity, reproye US and show us better
instead Of doing likewise.
But you still assert that some OF the per
fOrmanceS OF some of the leaders are such
as you can account for only ON the theory
that they would rather be political "bOsses"
than 20 promote the downfall Of the LIQUOR
business. And yOH 10 noe s.osatioss tAo ,ss-
JOrmdnces.
The two instances Of ''foollshness'' which
you mention are unf( rtunate. AS for the
Third District pr0hibitiOnists, they did not
wish TO defeat Mr.. Dingley, did not take
measures tending 10 defeat him. and In fact
made his election sure, IL indeed it was not
sure from the start. Had they wished to de-
feat MT. Dingley, they would have been fools
indeed, In year when the Democrats were
divided by bitter feuds, TO nominate man
prominently known as a former Democrat.
Such action could result only, as Il did, In
the Democratic candidate getting a ridicu-
lously small vote.
As for the temperance vote in the elty
election OF 1852, your reference 10 that Is
more unfortunate still. 1t was Republican
movement all through. Its starters we're Re
pubheanS; It's promoters were Republicans,
the candidate was Republican the voters
were Republicans; and the bulk Of them
are Republicans now. Mr.. Littledeld got
597 votes, when In the whole State OF Maine
there were only SSl Third Party Prohlbi-
uonlsts, OF whom scarcely dozen lived In
Portland. The whole affair was three or
four years before the Prohibtionists were
numerous enough even to organize. Your
language, foolish to the point Of idi0cy,"
suggests severity, but IL Is none Of our fu-
neral" The Temperance Republicans ought
to be able to defend themselves. They we're
only trying to do, what you suggest Is the
better way, to drive the Republicans into a
course satisfactory 10 them, and compel
them to become solid prohibition party"
O. L. LIBBY.
loh, no, we don't insist that abuse from
the Third Party leaders justifes retaliation,
but we think II a pity that men who are so
reckless in throwing stones are so sensitive.
As stated by Mr.. Libby, the nomination Of
Col. Eustis appears to have been very Gu
rious performance. The explanation given
In the convention was that it was necessary
because the Prohibitionists were running
distinct PARTY, and must have distinct candi-
dates. The endorsement Of Mr. Dingley
would have promoted the cause Of temper
anee quite as well. but the work Of building
up aparty required a separate nomination. IL
was one Of the cases where party building
took precedence Of temperance building.
Prominent in the movement to defeat Mr..
Libby in 1882 was Gen. Neal Dow, who was
Prohibition candidate for the Presidency. in
1880, and another gentleman, who has since
figured ON Third Party tickets. IL was to
all intents and purposes a Third Party
movement, though 1t may not have received
the official sanction Of the National Prohlbi-
tion committee. Undoubtedly some OF the
men who acted with 1t have since recovered
from their foolishness and gone back to the
and are now, as then, trying to promote tenn
peranee by means OF third party'l